Citation NR: 9606902
Decision Date: 03/19/96 Archive Date: 03/26/96
DOCKET NO. 94-31 543 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in
No. Little Rock, Arkansas
THE ISSUE
Entitlement to service connection for a seizure disorder.
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
Sabrina M. Tilley, Counsel
REMAND
The veteran served in the Army National Guard from 1984 to
1992. He performed a period of active duty for training from
April to May 1990.
The veteran appeared to have a seizure while on duty in April
1990. This condition was thought to be heat related. No
recurrences were observed during that time of service. In
August 1990, during a subsequent period of inactive duty for
training, the veteran was admitted to Baptist Hospital for
what appeared to be a grand mal seizure. A diagnosis of a
seizure disorder was not confirmed as the veteran failed to
appear for his medical evaluation board examination.
Likewise, there is no current diagnosis of a seizure
disorder. Nonetheless, the veteran has submitted statements
indicating recent episodes in which his eyes rolled to the
back of his head, and he began to shake and bite his tongue.
These statement indicated that currently the veteran is
experiencing similar types of symptoms noted during his
active service. However, there is no diagnosis or
determination of etiology contained in the record. As a
consequence, further clarification is necessary.
The veteran was scheduled for a VA examination in May 1994;
but he failed to report. However, shortly thereafter, in
June 1994, the veteran agreed to submit to neurological
examination. Yet, the record shows that the veteran did not
receive notice of the examination, as it was returned as
undeliverable. There is an indication in the record that the
RO previously used an incorrect mailing address to contact
the veteran, as the statement of the case had been returned.
Consequently, it is possible that a similar error was made in
mailing the notice of examination. The veteran should be
given the benefit of the doubt in this matter and another
attempt should be made to schedule him for a VA neurological
examination. In view of the foregoing, the case is remanded
to the RO for the following actions:
1. The RO should take all appropriate
action to afford the veteran a VA
neurological examination to determine the
current nature and etiology of any
existing seizure disorder. All indicated
special studies and tests should be
accomplished. After a review of the
clinical record, the medical examiner
should offer an opinion as to the date of
onset of the condition found. In this
regard, the examiner should consider the
events in May 1990 and August 1990, as
well as the lay statements concerning
recent episodes of seizure-like activity.
The claims folder should be made
available to the examiner for use in
studying the case.
2. The RO then should review the
veteran's claim for service connection
for a seizure disorder in light of the
additional development. If the benefit
sought on appeal is not granted, then the
veteran and his representative should be
given a supplemental statement of the
case.
After he and his representative have been given an
opportunity to respond, the case file should be returned to
the Board for further appellate review, if necessary. The
purpose of this REMAND is to procure clarifying data and to
comply with governing adjudicative procedures. The Board
intimates no opinion, either legal or factual, as to the
ultimate disposition of this appeal.
MARY GALLAGHER
Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals
The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures
Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, 741
(1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to
be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a
determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an
individual member of the Board.
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States
Court of Veterans Appeals. This remand is in the nature of a
preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the
Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b)
(1995).
- 2 -